No-one likes general adverts, and ours hadn't been updated for ages, so we're having a clear-out and a change round to make the new ones useful to you. These new adverts bring in a small amount to help pay for the board and keep it free for you to use, so please do use them whenever you can, Let our links help you find great books on glass or a new piece for your collection. Thank you for supporting the Board.

Author
Topic: ZBS Miloslav Klinger ashtray c.1965 (Read 3177 times)

At the market this morning, I found a Miloslav Klinger ashtray in citrin and virginit (my favourite colour combination). I had bought it with the intention to sell, but had a change of heart at home. It's a really wonderful piece -- and so much bigger than I had imagined it would be!

It's 12cm high and a whopping 18cm wide. It weighs 1287g. The last photo shows the ashtray in comparison to a 15cm Schrotter 'bullet' or 'lens'.

Oh, one of the best bits is the 'damage' -- it seems the finisher was a little over-zealous with the chamfering, resulting in an abstract flower at one end. I think it's super.

A really attractive piece Anik. ZBS did similar pieces with match-holders too I think. I am also wondering if this is possibly technically a pipe holder? I have not seen one in CGR pictured in use... maybe you have, as an ashtray, I am maybe not correct but I know there is a pipe holder in Raban from around this period ..... only a thought, a nice thing whatever! I like the magnificent unapologetic sculptural size!

Judging by the general size, and the size of the 'cigarette' rest (which is large enough to hold my chubby finger) I think you might just be right. There is a similar piece on the Detesk site, a little smaller and a slightly different shape, which is described as an ashtray, hence my assumption that mine was as well.

A really beautiful ZBS piece, Anik!A seller here at the fleamarket has one in emerald green which I would have bought if it hadn't been engraved with some flowers :ac1:

BTW, link to CGR 1979/11 where it is depicted used as an ashtray, PN 71079/18cm -- if they are right this wasn't designed by Klinger but by Josef Cvrcek (who is featured as designer of the famous vase with two openings on the previous page in that CGR issue as well :huh2:).

Michael, thank you for the link! I'm still going through the 60s at the moment.

The attribution is surprising. Then again, I've noticed that some issues of the CGR are riddled with mistakes. Detesk has it attributed to Klinger, which seems correct.

The cigarette in the holder is also surprising. After Robert's comments, I took a closer look and decided he's right in saying it might be for a pipe... Maybe pipes were out of fashion by the late 70s, hence the photo with the cigi? :spls:

Edit: I cross posted with Robert... Robert, are you being cynical with your CGR accurate attributions statement?

Edit again: I think I meant 'sacrastic' and not 'cynical' with my last comment.

That is an interesting topic regarding misattributions in CGR -- I really can't tell if there are a lot.I have not come across any obvious ones so far (but in many cases CGR is the only source of information for me, so I tend to believe what is written there :usd:).

The purpose of your piece -- in the one I saw here, the interior part would have been too narrow to hold a pipe I think...

I don't know about this attribution and to look at the piece it could be either designer! But it has some of the elegance of the Josef Cvrcek vase Michael mentions too.... CGR should have this attribution correct by 1979, we would hope... even if there are quite a few errors... wasn't it designed much earlier than the quoted article? I have to agree with Michael about the width of bowl on the ashtray being an issue against pipes now I look at it, you need a round space for a pipe to rest on.... If glass study was all obvious I guess we would have nothing to say!

As for mistakes in the CGR, I have noticed a few. Then again, I've only managed to make my way to 1972 when it comes to pressed glass, and 1962 when it comes to Skrdlovice.

Why would this piece, and all similar pieces, be so widely and readily attributed to Klinger? I wonder what later editions of the CGR say? It looks like further research is needed on my part. Not that I mind, of course.